The Hawera Star. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1926. THE COST OF THE NAVY.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 13 November 1926, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1926. THE COST OF THE NAVY.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’clock in H&wera, Mai. aia. Normanby. Okaiawa, filtham. Mangatolci. Kaponga, Alton, Hurleyville, Pataa, Waverley Mokoia, Whakarnara. Obangai, Mere mere. Fraser Road and Ararafca-

One eau well imagine that the New Zealand Prime Minister was a popular member of the Imperial Defence Committee at the meeting —reported in today’s cable news —at which the- question of the Dominions’ obligations in respect to naval defence was considered. For Mr Coates has stated repeatedly, both in this country and outside it, that New Zealand is not bearingits just share of the cost of the Rovnl Navy, and he will have been glad to accept added responsibilities on our behalf. Rightly so. for it is a poor loyalty and a poorer Imperialism which is content to allow the Motherland—less prosperous than we are and with more troubles of her own—to continue paying for the greater part of our coastal safety. In view of the fact that Admiralty control is centred in London, and so long as the greater part of the shipping for which the Navy keeps tin? sens free is registered in Home ports, it is reasonable to expect, the United Kingdom to make a greater per capita contribution to the cost than is required from any of the’Dominions; but it, is impossible to justify the present allocation, the .continuance of which means that the Motherland practically

is carrying the Dominions on her' already sorely-laden back. Yet there is reason to doubt if all the overseas representatives at the Imperial Conference will be as ready as Mr Coates to support a more equitable distribution of the burden. An article from a Canadian contributor in the last issue of The Round Tnble, while it admits to being written baldly and boldly, is sufficiently arresting to be still noteworthy were its assertions discounted by fifty per cent. ' The writer claims that ‘ ‘ the vast majority of the people of Canada do not feel in the least ashamed of the wretched pittance which they annually devote to the protection of their shores,” adding “no party, no public man of weight, no newspaper of influence, supports an increase in naval expenditure to-day,, whether by way of building up a Canadian fleet, or of providing funds for the Admiralty.” At first meeting this seems at the very least an unsettling jolt for Imperialism, the more so in light of the differing conceptions of Empire held at Ottawa and London. But from the point of view of the southern Dominions Canada lias a fairly strong case. It is begging the question to bluster and fume, as apparently Rome Canadians do, and to talk empty nonsense about not paying for “European militarism,” or “Tory jingoism.” But consider the justice of this view, set forth by The Round Table’s contributor: “The [British] Commonwealth is composed of six autonomous units and their dependencies; and it is obvious that they are not all defended by the British Navy in the same degree. The naval expenditure of Australia and New Zealand is much larger than the naval expenditure of Canada; it may be doubted whether this is due to any more intense ‘loyalty’ or ‘attachment to the Crown’ — such phrases - usually only obscure realities; the simplest explanation is that the inhabitants of these Dominions are conscious of a menace which does not threaten the people of Canada.” Without entering into a detailed discussion of the political situation in the Pacific, it is possible to concur in this view, in the case of our own Dominion, however, reserving the right to claim a certain additional loyalty of the type -which does not obscure realities. There is nothing aggressive in British naval policy—the nation’s ( prompt compliance with the terms of the Washington Pact is evidence of that —and the whole of the money spent, whether Canada finds it or we do, is spent by way of insurance premium on our security from molestation by other Powers. And the “risk” of molestation by sea, to maintain the figure of speech, is distinctly greater in our own ease and that of Australia than in Canada’s. Conveniently losing sight of their fertile Pacific coast — which feels the slight and is by far the most British province of the Dominion in consequence—Canadians assert that they are immune from attack by sea. Far from placing any value upon the security afforded them by the existence of the British Navy, therefore, they argue that they -would be equally as safe without it, and that, since it is of no use to them, and could be scrapped for all they care, they are under no obligation, legal or moral, to contribute to its upkeep. Canada claims to be protected by “a simple geographical fact”—her limited free seaboard and frozen northern frontier —coupled with “a complex political fact”—the unwisdom of the United States standing idly by if her land neighbour were attacked. This claim leads to a suggestion that the chief protection of the northern Dominion today is American power more than British Power. That surely is open to debate; but the fact remains that Canada is, by the accident of position, one of the most secure countries in the world, while her contention that the Royal Navy means less to her than to Great Britain or New Zealand cannot be disproved. That is about as far as we in this Dominion need go. Canada has her troubles, from which w*e are happy to be free; but the problem of naval defence is one that concerns us, and we shall feel that we are meeting it in a more worthy fashion if the deliberations of the Imperial Defence Committee result in a portion of the British taxpayers’ load being shifted to our shoulders.